Say no to the ratification of the Agreements / Appell gegen die Ratifizierung der Freihandels- und Assoziierungsabkommen der Europäischen Union mit Kolumbien, Peru und Zentralamerika
Online-Unterschriften unter den deutschsprachigen Text erwünscht - Englische Erläuterungen
In meinem Namen, keine Ratifizierung!
Unterzeichnen Sie einen Brief an Ihre Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments, damit sie der Ratifizierung der Freihandels- und Assoziierungsabkommen der Europäischen Union mit Kolumbien, Peru und Zentralamerika nicht zustimmen.
Die Abkommen, die nun dem Europäischen Parlament zur Ratifikation vorliegen, zielen auf Handelsbeziehungen der Europäischen Union mit Kolumbien, Peru und Zentralamerika ab, die die wirtschaftliche Lage für Bäuerinnen und Bauern verschlimmern, von ungesicherten Arbeitsbedingungen profitieren, die ernste Krise der Menschenrechtssituation in diesen Regionen noch verschärfen und verheerende Folgen für Bäuerinnen und Bauern, Indigene, die afrikanischstämmige Bevölkerung sowie die Umwelt haben.
Von hier aus können wir diese Abkommen stoppen, damit die Bevölkerung in Kolumbien, Peru und Zentralamerika ihre Zukunft und die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in die eigene Hand nehmen kann und nicht an kommerzielle Interessen verkauft wird.
Unterschreiben sie JETZT!
DER VOLLSTÄNDIGE TEXT:
Es geht um unsere Zukunft: Ich will faire Handelsbeziehungen.
Ich als Bürger/in der Europäischen Union (EU) setze mich dafür ein, dass die Beziehungen zwischen der EU und Lateinamerika fair und gleichberechtigt sind. Ich will gerechte Handelsbeziehungen zwischen unseren beiden Regionen und habe starke Bedenken, dass die von der EU mit Zentralamerika, Peru und Kolumbien ausgehandelten Abkommen darauf ausgerichtet sind. Dafür sprechen die folgenden Punkte:
-
Es bestehen grundlegende Unterschiede im Hinblick auf Wirtschaft und Lebensstandard zwischen Europa, Zentralamerika, Kolumbien und Peru. Diese Unterschiede erlauben es der stärkeren Vertragspartei – in diesem Fall der EU – ihre Interessen und Bestimmungen durchzusetzen, durch die die anderen Länder in der Selbstbestimmung über ihr Entwicklungsmodell eingeschränkt werden.
- Europa strebt aufgrund der aktuellen Krise danach, seine Rolle auf dem Weltmarkt zu stärken. Dafür benötigt es privilegierte Rohstofflieferanten. Entwicklungsländer, wie die Länder Zentralamerikas sowie Peru und Kolumbien, die stärker am Welthandel teilhaben wollen, akzeptieren in diesen Abkommen die Verfestigung ihrer Rolle als Rohstoffexporteure – mit schwerwiegenden ökologischen und sozialen Folgen, auf die keine Rücksicht genommen wurde.
- Die Abkommen stellen den Schutz von Geschäftsbeziehungen über die Menschenrechte, wodurch der Menschenrechtsschutz nicht ausreichend gewährleistet ist. Die den europäischen Unternehmen gewährten Vorteile schlagen sich auch nicht in größerem Wohlstand für die Bevölkerung nieder.
- Als Bürger/innen sind wir nicht ausreichend über den Inhalt der Verhandlungen informiert worden. Wir sind auch nicht gefragt worden, ob wir diese Art der Handelsbeziehungen wollen.
Aus diesen und anderen Gründen möchte ich als Bürger/in mich durch Sie, meine Vertreter/innen im Europäischen Parlament, zu Wort melden und bitte Sie, gegen die Ratifizierung dieser Abkommen zu stimmen. Damit schließe ich mich zahlreichen Gruppen an, die sich bereits gegen die Abkommen gewandt haben: Gewerkschaften, Menschenrechtsorganisationen, Frauenrechtlerinnen, Indigene, Afrikanischstämmige und andere.
Nutzen wir die Gelegenheit, um gemeinsam für gleichberechtigte und faire Beziehungen einzutreten:
In meinem Namen: KEINE RATIFIZIERUNG!
Hier geht es zum Formular für die Online-Unterschrift:
Weitere Informationen über die Handelsabkommen in englischer, spanischer und französischer Sprache unter: http://www.fta-eu-latinamerica.org
Im Folgenden die Informationen in englischer Sprache:
Say no to the ratification of the Agreements negotiated by the European Union with Central America, Colombia and Peru.
Manifesto of Central American, Andean and European Organizations, Networks, and Social Movements.
The VI European Union-Latin America and Caribbean
Summit of Heads of State and Government took place
in Madrid, Spain on 18 May 2010. During this event, negotiations
for an Association Agreement between the EU
and Central America, and a Multi-party Trade Agreement
between the EU and Colombia and Peru were concluded.
The different networks and social movements from the
three regions, who were in Madrid during the People’s
Alternative Summit, discussed the reach and possible
impacts of the Agreements, and established that they
would coordinate activities to inform and raise public
awareness, as well as carrying out advocacy work and
direct action around the inherent dangers of the Agreements.
As part of this process, we publish the following
Manifesto:
The economic world crisis has questioned the ‘free
trade’ model on which the agreements are based. The
predominant free trade logic of the Agreements negotiated
between the EU and Central America and between
the EU and Colombia and Peru, corresponds to a model
which is now strongly questioned. This model will furthermore severely limit the autonomy of the States involved,
to promote and defi ne regional and national
development policies in favour of the majority of their
citizens. In addition, the conclusion of these agreements
take place in a context of multiple crises, related to economics,
climate, energy and food, a context that strongly
affects the Southern countries, especially Central American
and Andean countries, due to their particularly vulnerable
environment.
1. From Association Agreements to Free Trade Agreements
The Agreements chiefl y favour the commercial interests
of the EU, including access to markets and a range of
services, investments, governmental ownership, and intellectual
property. In exchange, the Central American
countries, as well as Colombia and Peru, have obtained
‘certain advantages’ in market access. These advances
only consolidate these countries’ current access to the
General Preference System (SGP), restating their role
as raw material exporters, and thereby their vulnerable
position on the international market.
2. Largely asymmetric Agreements
As far as development, wellbeing and standards of living
are concerned, there are huge asymmetries between
the EU and Central America, Colombia and Peru. The
decrease of these differences between and within the
regions was to be a priority in the negotiations. Nevertheless,
the Agreements do not incorporate truly effective
mechanisms that could contribute to reducing the
asymmetries. On the contrary, the negotiations increase
these inequalities.
The results of the dairy sector negotiations are an example
of this inequity. The entrance of highly subsidized
European dairy products will provoke a shift in the Central
American and Andean markets, and therefore affect
local producers and compromise those regions’ food
sovereignty. This is even more signifi cant if we consider
that milk is essential to the family diet.
3. The Agreements do not favour, but in fact harm the current regional integration process
One of the fundamental objectives of the negotiations
was to reinforce the sub-regional integration processes
in Central America and the Andean region. This was
also a characteristic which would differentiate them from
the previous Free Trade Agreements negotiated with
the United States. However, the process of negotiation
showed important incoherencies in this matter. As far as
the Andean integration process is concerned, the fact
that only Peru and Colombia were accepted to continue
the negotiations, has contributed to an increase in tensions
among the member countries of the Andean Community.
Similarly, the inclusion of Panama as part of the
Agreement, without being part of the Central American
Economic Integration System (SIECA), and after having
announced its withdrawal from the Central American
Parliament (PARLACEN), affects Central American institutional
integrity.
The government of Ecuador has announced its willingness
to discuss a Trade Agreement for Development
with the EU. The lack of fl exibility showed by the EU
in previous discussions, however, points to the unlikelihood
of reaching true negotiations under these conditions.
Nevertheless, in light of this situation, we are
asking not only that this process be carried out in full
consultation and consensus with the population, but
that it also should respect the Ecuadorian Constitution,
and principles of equality contained within the concept
of Buen Vivir. We organizations, networks and social
movements will closely monitor the direction that these
conversations take.
4. The liberalization of natural resources and strategic sectors limits development possibilities and impinges upon the sovereignty of the State
European and American multinational corporations have
coveted the natural resources, biodiversity, ancestral
knowledge, public services, water supplies, and mineral
and energetic resources of Central America and
the Andean region. The Agreements favour the corporations’
interests in these areas. To place sectors which
are strategic for regional development at the disposal of
European corporations affects future possibilities for regional
economic integration and State sovereignty, and
reasserts the free trade model, while ignoring its consequences.
5. The Agreements could increase current confl icts in Colombia, Peru and the Andean region
The extractivist models applied currently, both in Central
America and the Andean region, have been rejected by
the population and caused social movements to defend
territory and natural resources, especially among indigenous
and afro descendant peoples. The Agreements
negotiated with the EU tend to strengthen this model,
which will aggravate existing social and environmental
conflicts.
6. The Agreements do not favour the defence and promotion of human rights above free trade
Besides containing decisions which will affect the economic,
social and cultural rights of Central American,
Peruvian and Colombian peoples, the Agreements do not include effective mechanisms to condition commercial preferences on the fulfi lment of human rights; nor do they contain mechanisms for trading sanctions to confront human rights violations.
Additionally, it is worth highlighting that the conclusion of
the negotiations was prioritised above any consideration
with regards to good government or human rights. Neither
the crisis for democracy in Honduras after the coup,
nor the serious violations to trade union freedom in Colombia,
Guatemala and Panama during the negotiations
managed to alter their course.
These facts show incoherence on the part of the European
Union, since it prioritised the completion of the
Agreements and failed to insist on effective protection
measures.
7. The Agreements limit the possibilities for civil society participation during their implementation
During the negotiations, the proposals and recommendations
of a number of organisations and social movements
from the three regions were overlooked. The
Agreement does not include a binding mechanism for
the participation of a diverse and broad range of organisations
and social movements. The planned Forums
are insuffi cient mechanisms for participation and do not
guarantee transparency or democracy in the Agreement.
8. The Agreements overlook the Environmental Impact Assessments
The environmental Impact Assessments, commissioned
by the European Commission and published before the
end of the negotiations, however incomplete, nevertheless
referred to impacts in certain sensitive areas. These
warnings were totally overlooked when the text of the
Agreement was completed, showing no intention of confronting
these possible impacts.
In conclusion, considering that the economic crisis continues,
that the Agreements favour the commercial interests
of the EU, that they compromise strategic State
resources, that they weaken the regional integration processes
and that they do not imply progress in terms of
human rights protection or improvements in standards of living, or in decreasing social inequalities, the organisations
signing below, who come from the three regions
and are concerned about these negotiations,
demand that all parliaments involved in the ratifi -
cation of these agreements, begin a debate about
them, taking the following points into account:
-
There are lessons to be learned from the global
crisis resulting from the failure of the neoliberal
model on which the Agreements are based. Priority
should be given to Treaties and Conventions
on Human rights and Environmental protection rather
than to commercial interests.
- The principal aim of the Agreements was to
reduce the existing asymmetries between the
parts, yet these inequalities were not taken into account,
resulting in unjust and unequal Agreements.
- The initial purpose of the Agreements was to
contribute to the strengthening of the regional
integration processes, yet the results indicate a
move in the opposite direction.
Considering the abovementioned points, we urge all
parliament members concerned to vote against the
ratifi cation, in order to create the possibility for a
real discussion on relations between the EU, Central
American and Andean region, from a new perspective,
in equal conditions, and with a renewed agenda
incorporating civil society organisations.
Quelle: Website von Free Trade Agreements EU-Latinamerica; www.fta-eu-latinamerica.org
Zurück zur Lateinamerika-Seite (arabischer Raum)
Zur EU-Europa-Seite
Zurück zur Homepage